Friday, June 29, 2012

Evolution Professor: Special-Creation “Effectively Eliminated”

In his book Inside the Human Genome evolution professor and National Academy of Science member John Avise continues with the usual evolutionary religious claims that the evil and inefficiency of biological designs—at the molecular level in this case—necessitate evolution, for such designs would never have been designed or created by a loving higher intelligence. As usual, it’s all about religion.

In his chapter on non intelligent design, Avise points out that the world is deeply flawed right down to the fundamental, molecular level, and he repeats his religious belief that ascribing such a world to a Creator God is tantamount to blasphemy:

If, on the other hand, natural causation is denied, and a caring Intelligent Designer is to be held directly responsible for life’s imperfect features, then the theodicy challenge remains poignant. How could a Creator God have engineered such a deeply flawed biological world, right down to its most elemental molecular features? Unless we pretend that biological defects do not exist, we seem forced to conclude that any Intelligent Designer is either technically fallible, morally challenged, or both. Furthermore, if the intelligent designer is deemed to be the Abrahamic God (rather than a Martian, for example), then are we not guilty of blasphemy in ascribing to Him a direct hand in sponsoring the molecular genomic flaws that plague human health? [156]

But this is only the beginning of evolution’s metaphysics and Avise next points out that these so-called “shared errors” are common to many species:

Furthermore, molecular imperfections in the human genome provide significant evidence for evolution not only because they are imperfect but also because they are phylogenetically interpretable. Most genomic flaws (apart from de novo mutations that are currently confined to particular individuals) are distributed across biological taxa in ways that make evolutionary (i.e., phylogenetic) sense. This is true at all levels in the phylogenetic hierarchy. At the microevolutionary scale, many genetic disorders in humans “run in families” according to specifiable rules of Mendelian inheritance. [157]

Avise’s argument that genetic disorders “run in families” is weak. Nor is his argument from shared errors any better because convergence in biology is rampant. Evolutionists never had a problem before with astonishingly complex designs that are found in distant branches of the evolutionary tree.

If evolution is true those designs must have evolved independently, in spite of the ridiculously low chances of such an evolutionary path occurring twice (or even once for that matter).

So if evolution has no problem with biology’s astonishing levels of convergence, which repeatedly falsified evolutionary expectations, then it hardly can claim some other similarities, flawed or otherwise, as compelling evidence.

But of course this isn’t where the power of the argument comes. The point of the argument, as Avise immediately explains, is a religious one:

And at the mesoevolutionary and macroevolutionary scales, humans share many molecular features, including particular molecular flaws, with various other taxa in the nested hierarchies of phylogeny. When fine details of molecular errors recur in phylogenetically related species, special-creation explanations for such errors are thus effectively eliminated (unless we are to suppose that a bumbling Creator made the same molecular mistakes time and again when directly forging different species). [157]

Evolutionary thought has always been a referendum on creationism. That’s why they insist on labeling ID theorists as “creationists.”

Let’s be clear about the nature of this debate. There is nothing wrong with evolutionary theorizing, per se. For there is nothing wrong with religious premises driving one’s thinking. Men have done this for eons and it certainly is not showing any signs of slowing.

Evolutionary thought can be traced to antiquity. In the era of modern science it shows up in the seventeenth century in Christian thinkers such as Malebranche, Burnet, Ray, Cudworth, and Leibniz, to name a few.

By the nineteenth century this movement had gained substantial momentum. Darwin served to collect, formalize and apply this thought specifically to the origin of species and his work was drenched in metaphysics. He is rightly exalted as the father of modern evolutionary thought as he set the template for the historical sciences in the twentieth century.

Most importantly, Darwin refined and exemplified a method that is now taken for granted in origins research. Namely, Darwin’s thought was motivated by, entailed and hinged on metaphysics no less than earlier thinkers. But in Darwin the metaphysics was subtly dressed in empirical language. Here is a typical example:

Thus, we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds; we cannot believe that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.

One can read through such passages and almost conclude that Darwin is merely presenting empirical scientific reasoning and conclusions. And so it is with today’s evolutionary reasoning, such as this typical textbook example:

If the 11 species had independent origins, there is no reason why their [traits] should be correlated.

It all sounds so scientific. But of course it is not. This is the great deception of evolutionary thought. It is made to sound scientific, and indeed evolutionists argue strenuously that it is. They claim the high ground of “just science” and use creationists as their foil.

And so there are three problems with evolutionary thought. First, it claims that its finding that evolution is a fact derives from empirical science. Second, it criticizes the use of religious assumptions. Third, its everything-came-from-nothing hypothesis, while religiously compelling, is scientifically absurd.

The first of these problems is a lie. The second is a hypocrisy. And the third is an abuse of science.

Evolutionists, of course, recognize none of this. But neither do their detractors. Common criticisms are that evolution is “only a theory” and so could be wrong. Even more typical is the complaint that evolution is really nothing more than atheism in disguise. Both criticisms are glaring misconceptions of evolutionary thought which simply give evolutionists more confidence. If criticisms of their ideas are clearly false, then they must be doing well.

This is why it is important to understand evolution. For both evolutionists and skeptics, progress will be difficult until evolution is properly understood.

In fact, to be more specific as to the 'scientific' problem this presents to neo-Darwinism,,,

We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110613012758.htm

*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutationsReproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. - Dr. John Sanford

Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk ExtinctionExcerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdfMENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINEhttp://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

Perhaps John Avise and other militant neo-Darwinists such as PZ Myers, who rail against what God should and shouldn't do with allowing genetic entropy, should instead concern themselves primarily with 'science' which crushes the Darwinism before they plunge full depth into deep Theological arguments on Theodicy to which they are ill equipped to handle?

@CH: Ignoring the immense difficulty in finding function among a sparse protein space, isn't convergent evolution a better explanation for shared benefits than it is for shared detriments, since natural selection is at play?

And why are you not at least equally upset with John Avise's blatant disregard for what the evidence, that he himself cites, is indicating as you are with my misspelled word??? It clearly seems evident that if you were truly concerned with the science, instead of just propaganda, then you would be dismayed that he could make such a blunder in 'scientific' reasoning!!!

Second, it [evolutionary thought] criticizes the use of religious assumptions.

Not exactly. A more accurate claim would be that some evolutionary thinkers criticize the use of religious assumptions. And rightly so, in light of the failure of religious assumptions to stand the test of experience.

But that's irrelevant. Evolutionary theory makes no religious claims. It's the religious folk that are offended by it and raise objections to it.

Collin: Yes. Life from non-life without design does seem like something for nothing. It seems like a free lunch.

First, a designer that "Just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically reformulate it as: organism "Just appeared", complete with the knowledge of how to build complex biological adaptations, already present. So, you're still stuck with the problem of a "free lunch".

To illustrate this, what is the origin of the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations, as found the genome?

Second, evolution explains the creation of this knowledge though conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection. In other words, the knowledge isn't actually free. It's created though evolutionary processes.

However, you do not recognize your own conception of human knowledge, which includes God as the ultimate source, as an idea that would be subject to criticism. Specifically, the knowledge of how to build organisms cannot be created, because it's always existed. This is the same conception behind claims that morality cannot exist unless God exits to ground it.

As such, you interpret this knowledge as being "free" unless God put it there.

But, this is specific to your particular conception of human knowledge, which not everyone shares. It's parochial.

And exactly why is abortion morally wrong in the materialistic neo-Darwinian worldview?

At Emory University, Consternation over Ben Carson, Evolution, and Morality - Richard Weikart - May 10, 2012Excerpt: If Emory University (biology) professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/at_emory_univer_1059491.html

How Darwin's Theory Changed the WorldRejection of Judeo-Christian valuesExcerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.“The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm

footnote: the body count for abortion is now over 50 million in America since it was legalized, by judicial fiat not by public decree, in 1973 (legislation by liberal justices from the bench!):

Review of 'Hitler's Ethic" by Richard Weikart:The reviewer stated: "Weikart’s book is a respectable piece of research. . . . Weikart knows his sources. . . . The result is a persuasive image of Hitler’s personal belief-system: a kind of secular religion, based on a cult of evolutionary progress. . . . There was, in other words, not just method in this murderous madness but moral purpose, albeit one that turned on its head the Christian precepts by which Europe had sought to live for centuries. This is an important finding.” You can read a longer excerpt at the link below."http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/hitlersethic.htm

I'll again ask you directly: how do you differentiate between taking someone else's claims serious for the purpose of criticism and personally believing those claims are true? Or are you claiming there is no difference?

Why have you failed to even acknowledge the question?

Specifically, you seem to be appealing to the possibility that an perfectly good being might intentionally "have engineered such a deeply flawed biological world, right down to its most elemental molecular features" in just such a way that these flaws "are distributed across biological taxa in ways that make evolutionary (i.e., phylogenetic) sense" for some reason we simply cannot comprehend. As such, this does represent a religious belief.

However, if the qualifier "perfectly good" does not narrow down God's actions in some specific way, then it's empty. As a theory, it doesn't stick its neck out in a way that allows it to be criticized, in practice. At which point special creation is effectively eliminated as a explanation for the biological complexity we observe, because it could explain everything, and therefore nothing.

So, either "God did it", isn't an explanation, but a mere logical possibility (and we discard an infinite number of mere possibilities every day in every field of science) or "perfectly good" has meaning for the purpose of criticism. Which is it?

If the later, then feel free to enlighten us.

For example, perhaps you define "perfectly good" as anything that is in agreement with depictions of the Christian God the Bible, in that the Bible claims God is "perfectly good", depicts God as having created this world and that the Bible is the divine word of God. Therefore any criticism of the claim that an all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good God would or would not do anything depicted in the Bible represents criticism of whether the Bible is the divinely reavealed word of God?

If so, then why not just come out and say that in the first place? If not, then connect the dots and show us your work.

What's particularly humorous is that you seem to think you can remain "neutral" on this issue by merely refusing to acknowledge the question, while still suggesting that "God did it" would be anything more than a mere logical possibility that we must not discard.

For example, imagine you directly asked me what my favorite baseball team. If I had no favorite team, would you expect me to simply tell you I have no favorite baseball team or completely refuse to acknowledge the question? If the latter, what would you conclude?

Cornelius, you didn't get it quite right with the following statement: "Even more typical is the complaint that evolution is really nothing more than atheism in disguise."

If I may . . . Evolution is NOT atheism is disguise but IS atheism's "creation" story. As the worldview that it is, atheism needs to explain where it originated, otherwise it is meaningless. So, all those who reject the idea that they, as creatures, are accountable to a personal God, defend evolution tooth and nail, no matter how hairbrained the its foundations might be. Consider the following admission by the well know evolutionary biologist, professor Richard Lewontin:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

There you have it, a Divine Foot cannot be allowed in the door otherwise their whole worldview just crumbles to pieces.

aedgar: As the worldview that it is, atheism needs to explain where it originated, otherwise it is meaningless.

If you're a justificationist, then sure. I can see how you might think that. However, I'm not a justificationist. Rather, I'm a critical rationalist. As such, I do not need to justify conclusion via some ultimate origin. In fact, it's unclear how this is even possible in regards to anything, let alone biological complexity.

As such, you're projecting your problem on me.

As for Lewontin, do you expect us to believe that it was merely an accident that you omitted the first sentence from the paragraph you quoted?

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. "

aedgar: There you have it, a Divine Foot cannot be allowed in the door otherwise their whole worldview just crumbles to pieces.

Apparently, you've having difficulty understanding Lewontin's point.

If we do exist in a finite bubble of explicably, which is an island in a sea of of inexplicability, the inside of this bubble cannot be explicable either. This is because the inside is supposedly dependent what occurs in this inexplicable realm.

Any assumption that the world is inexplicable leads to bad explanations. That is, no theory about what exists beyond this bubble can be any better than "Zeus rules" there. And, given the dependency above, this also means there can be no better expiation that "Zeus rules" inside this bubble as well.

In other words, what's inside this bubble would only appear to explicable if one carefully avoids asking specific questions. Otherwise, you'd follow your own claims to the conclusion that "That's just what God must have wanted" was the best explanation for everything, rendering everything just as inexplicable as everything else.

If I may . . . Evolution is NOT atheism in disguise but IS atheism's "creation" story.

Thank you for commenting but I'm afraid you are illustrating the problem described in the OP. Sure, evolution is atheism's creation story as you say but, Lewontin notwithstanding, that is not the motivation or argument for evolution.

CH: Sure, evolution is atheism's creation story as you say but, Lewontin notwithstanding, that is not the motivation or argument for evolution.

Notice the contrast here.

When, Cornelius presents an explanation for the acceptance of evolutionary theory, we deny it while at the same time criticizing that explanation in detail.

On the other hand, when I present an explanation for Cornelius' objection to evolutionary theory, what does he do? He refuses to even acknowledge the criticism presented. Nor does he deny the explanation.

For example, Cornelius seems to "know" acceptance of evolution is due to religious belief, despite the fact that we point out we're criticizing the religious beliefs of others. Yet, he is completely unfazed. At best, he might reiterate his claim that we do not even realize our own religious belief.

How might we explain his repeated claims, despite our clear criticism and denial? How exactly does he know this is indeed the case?

I'd suggest Cornelius "knows" this due to his acceptance of Biblical claims that, deep down, we know God exists and that we reject him. As a self proclaimed Christian, it's reasonable to assume he believes this has been divinely revealed that is indeed true. Of course, he could simply deny this, as we have in regards to his claims.

An example of this is Apocalyptic Theodicy, which represents one of many ways the Bible attempts to make sense out of suffering. Specially, Apocalyptic Theodicy claims there is a cosmic battle of Good and Evil raging in this age in which everyone takes sides, even if they do not realize it or not. God has personal enemies which happened to be currently in control of worldly things in this age. As such, if you're on God's side, then bad things that happen to you are "explained" as collateral damage in this war.

In fact, he's came right out and said that "evolutionary theory" reflects the sort of thinking one would expect when their thoughts are corrupted by sin. So, he's literally presenting a conception of human knowledge in which supernatural forces from an inexplicable realm supposedly reach into our bubble of explicably in some inexplicable way for some inexplicable reason and actively influences what we think.

Of course, the problem with sort of thinking is illustrated in my above comment to aedgar. If it's true that our thoughts are influences by some inexplicable ream, then no better explanation can be had for our thoughts other than "that's just what Zeus must have wanted"

Again, Cornelius could simply deny that he believes this is actually true, while providing an alternate explanation. But this assumes that he actually recognizes his conception of human knowledge is an idea that is subject to criticism, and his posts and comments, or lack there of, suggest that he does not.

Do you recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism?

I'm asking because you refuse to even acknowledge our criticism of your claim that evolution is accepted merely due to personal religious belief. Specifically, we've pointed out that there is a difference between criticizing the religious beliefs of others and actually holding that belief ourselves.

It's as if you deny that criticism is valid in the case of God's existence, his role in your conception of human knowledge and the complexity of the biosphere, etc.

So, what is your alternative explanation for your failure to acknowledge this criticism? What else do you expect us to conclude other than you do not recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism?

In other words, what is the refusal to acknowledge criticism, if not a concrete example of just this very assumption? Please be specific.

If I may . . . Evolution is NOT atheism is disguise but IS atheism's "creation" story.

Atheism is no more or less than a lack of belief or disbelief in a god, for whatever value of the term "god" that is being proposed. If there is no god and, hence, no special creation then there is no requirement for a "creation" story.

As the worldview that it is, atheism needs to explain where it originated, otherwise it is meaningless.

The word "meaningless", like the word "meaning", implies to whom since meaning exists only in the mind of an intelligent agent. For believers the only valid or authoritative meaning is that which exists in the mind of their preferred deity. Atheists would ask why that meaning, whatever it might be, should have priority over any other?

On the question of the origins of everything, atheists are as curious about that as anyone else and there is ongoing research into abiogenesis. The fact that there is no completely naturalistic account of origins yet does not mean that there never will be. We can afford to be patient.

As for a "worldview" being meaningless without an adequate account of origins, the same objection could be leveled at Christian belief, for example. Claiming "God did it" tells us who not how, which is what is being demanded of atheists. In that case, the word "God" is being used as a placeholder or label for an explanation of how that does not yet exist.

[...]

Consider the following admission by the well know evolutionary biologist, professor Richard Lewontin:

Ah, the notorious Lewontin quote! You wouldn't be the same person who posts on Uncommon Descent as "kairosfocus", would you?

There you have it, a Divine Foot cannot be allowed in the door otherwise their whole worldview just crumbles to pieces.

Except the metaphor is misleading. Atheists are not struggling to hold the door shut against the irresistible weight of evidence for the Divine Foot. The door is wide open but there is no sign of Divine Footwork or Handiwork to be seen. It is atheists pointing that out that leads some believers to feel uncomfortable about the foundations of their own "worldview".

Another day, another portion of bait-and-switch misrepresentations from Hunter. He faults Avise for using metaphysical arguments in Inside the Human Genome. He complains that "evolutionary thought has always been a referendum on creationism." It would certainly be against established scientific practice to rely on religious (or anti-religious) arguments in a scientific article or book. So, does this mean Avise is guilty of diluting science with his metaphysics?

Well, no. Inside the Human Genome is not a scientific treatise. The dust cover of the book tells us that it "is the first book to examine the philosophical question of why, from the perspectives of biochemistry and molecular genetics, flaws exist in the biological world." So, plain and simple, this is a philosophical work that covers a range of topics including theology and its subdiscipline theodicy (to which Avise gets on the second page of in Chapter 1). Established science is used to make a philosophical argument, not the other way around. You wouldn't know it from reading Hunter's opening post.

Yet the science he bases his philosophical argument on defeats Darwinism! Go figure!

Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. AviseExcerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk ExtinctionExcerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001172753.htm

Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdfMENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINEhttp://mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

Perhaps John Avise and other militant neo-Darwinists such as PZ Myers, who rail against what God should and shouldn't do with allowing genetic entropy, should instead concern themselves primarily with 'science' which crushes the Darwinism before they plunge full depth into deep Theological arguments on Theodicy to which they are ill equipped to handle?

oleg, Why do you fight tooth and nail to defend Darwinism?,,, to defend a theory that is clearly empirically bankrupt? Why should it matter one iota to you? Nihilistic atheism is certainly not attractive as a worldview even if Darwinism were to have been found to be true, and I don't even want to consider the gravity for you for rejecting the truth.

He did learn a new trick. Find some paper with reference to something evolving and say "ZOMG! How dare they write as if evolution were true! They're just assuming that, they have to prove evolution each time they mention it". It's very much like the old tricks, but lazier.

"Oh, but you positively drool at the thought that someone else goes to hell."

Actually troy, I am horrified that anyone, even Hitler, would go to Hell. Why would you dare think that I, or anyone, would find delight in someone else's eternal torment? That certainly is an interesting accusation that you would make towards me! In fact my hope and prayer is that people who fight so hard against God would turn and make their peace with God through Christ before they pass into eternity.

A few notes as to the 'reality' of Hell:

It is very interesting to note that we have two very different qualities of ‘eternality of time’ revealed by our time dilation experiments;

Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein's theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. --In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.--In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Time Dilation - General and Special Relativity - Chuck Missler - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/w/7013215/

i.e. Just as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particular interest to the ‘eternal framework’ found for General Relativity at black holes;… It is interesting to note that entropic decay (Randomness), which is the primary reason why things grow old and eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of chaos’.

Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space."

i.e. Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order such as the extreme order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang. Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternality of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded' persuasion!

Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Obviously not. We do not "prove" "facts" in science. We fit models to data. But you know this.

To which we could reply with any number of references, such as:

Now, when we say that “evolution is true,” what we mean is that the major tenets of Darwinism have been verified. Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors, and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation. No serious biologist doubts these propositions. -- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True.

So read what Coyne says. He does not say that anything is "proven". As I said, we do not "prove" "facts" in science. All the things Coyne listed are supported by copious amounts of evidence. That does not make them proven facts, and Coyne does not say so (and even if he did, what someone says in a book or a blog is not equivalent to what the scientific claims actually are).

But it is the reason why "no serious biologists doubts these propositions", just as no serious scientists doubts that the solar system is a few billion years old.

Organisms evolved, they did so gradually, lineages split into different species from common ancestors,

while

the genetic evidence,

supports this:

and natural selection is the major engine of adaptation.

In addition. Moreover it reveals many of the mechanisms of variance generation as well as the relationship between inheritance and phenotype, which is key to natural selection.

the overwhelming detrimental mutation rate,

No, you've misunderstood this. The overwhelming proportion of mutations are near-neutral. Clearly in a population well-adapted to its current environment, more mutation will be worse-than current average than better-than current average, but if the environment changes, this can easily reverse.

population genetics,

Also supports Darwinian evolution, indeed, it is one of the domains that has helped verify it.

and real world empirical evidence

All the above is real world empirical evidence, but there is more, including the actual observation of Darwinian evolution in the field, in the lab, and in computer applications.

However, throughout the nineteenth century whenever people talked about evolution, they referred to it as a theory. To be sure, at first, the thought that life on Earth could have evolved was merely a speculation. Yet, beginning with Darwin in 1859, more and more facts were discovered that were compatible only with the concept of evolution. Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. --Ernst Mayr

However, throughout the nineteenth century whenever people talked about evolution, they referred to it as a theory. To be sure, at first, the thought that life on Earth could have evolved was merely a speculation. Yet, beginning with Darwin in 1859, more and more facts were discovered that were compatible only with the concept of evolution. Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. --Ernst Mayr

Thanks for demonstrating that Ernst Mayr understood the difference between the observed fact of evolution and the theory that explains the fact.

Yet, the fossil record is characterized by abruptness and stasis with disparity of form preceding diversity within form, which is completely antithetical to the 'bottom up gradualism Darwin envisioned:

Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=15dxL40Ff6kI2o6hs8SAbfNiGj1hEOE1QHhf1hQmT2Yg

Claim #2

the genetic evidence, supports this:

As the preceding post on RNA's pointed out, "the tree is all wrong", Moreover the discordance extends into DNA itself:

A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult - May 2010Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-model-for-evolution-rhizome.html

Hopeful Monsters and Other Tales: Evolutionists Challenge Darwin - Feb. 2010Excerpt: Jerry Fodor, a (atheistic) philosopher at Rutgers, is angry at the dogmatic Darwinists who see natural selection as the be-all and end-all of evolutionary change.,,, Fodor’s beef with natural selection appears to stem from its storytelling propensity. Why do people have traits like hair on their heads and dark hair with dark eyes? “You can make up a story that explains why it was good to have those properties in the original environment of selection,” he said. “Do we have any reason to think that story is true? No.”Fodor co-authored the book "What Darwin Got Wrong"http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201002.htm#20100224a

Yet, The overwhelming proportion are shown to be slightly detrimental:

Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed.http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html

etc.. etc.. etc..

Claim #5

population genetics, Also supports Darwinian evolution, indeed, it is one of the domains that has helped verify it.

Yet, the "modern synthesis" is dead:

The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis

Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/oxford_university_admits_darwi046351.html

"including the actual observation of Darwinian evolution in the field, in the lab, and in computer applications."

Yet:

Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies

Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit

LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case.http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/

Interesting response considering the nature of the topic at hand. But to answer your question, I have written poetry in the past and even won 1st place in a national competition for veterans with this following poem:

Thorton, did you know that 'bat spit' is being developed as a medicine for stroke victims?

Vampire bat saliva breaks up blood clots - 2011Excerpt: A new national study is underway to see if a compound extracted from their saliva can actually help patients survive a stroke.

Someone in the US suffers a stroke every 40 seconds. Right now, doctors only have a 3-hour window to treat stroke patients before blood clots clog blood vessels in the brain.

Blocking blood and oxygen flow can cause permanent brain damage, paralysis, speech problems, and even death. A blood-clot buster called rt-PA has to be administered during those 3 hours or else it would cause brain damage.

Lo and behold, vampire bat (Desmodus rotundus) saliva could extend that treatment window, reducing the severity of a stroke.

Doctors at Ohio State University hope to extend it up to 9 hours by using a chemical isolated from vampire bat saliva that can quickly dissolve clots.

Vampire bats feed off the blood of their prey, and their little trick for keeping the blood thin and flowing is an anti-coagulant in their bite. It’s an enzyme called desmoteplase (DSPA).

“By giving stroke patients just enough of the dose, it would slice right through the clot, without having you bleed to death in the process,” says lead researcher, OSU’s Michel Torbey.http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/rethinking-healthcare/vampire-bat-saliva-breaks-up-blood-clots/4428

Louis, as I keep trying to explain, but you keep ignoring, a falsification test of the kind you are asking for doesn't exist.

We can only falsify a null. So, to falsify Darwinian evolutionary processes, you would have to propose an alternative that fitted the data better than the Darwinian model.

However, there are hypothesis within the broad body of evolutionary theory that are regularly tested by comparison with alternative theories. For example we can now reject the hypothesis that all genetic sequences are either inherited or are de novo sequences generated during meiosis or mitosis, because it is now clear that some genetic sequences are acquired via "horizontal" transmission, for example by viruses, or by symbiosis. This means that Darwin's simple "tree" model has been falsified. Current models have been elaborated to include non-longitudinal genetic transfer.

Liddle, the claim that the species arose solely via Darwinian evolutionary processes is one that is made with uncompromising vehemence by evolutionists. It is the sine qua non of evolution. If it cannot be tested, then evolution is not a science. Chicken feather voodoo science is what it is.

Your attempt above at formulating an excuse for the non-falsifiability of Darwinian evolution is dead on arrival.

Louis: Liddle, the claim that the species arose solely via Darwinian evolutionary processes is one that is made with uncompromising vehemence by evolutionists. It is the sine qua non of evolution.

No, it is not.

Wow. They sure fooled me and a whole lot of other people.

And whether it would be reasonable or not would depend in part on what you meant by "Darwinian mechanisms". We know that love evolved by many mechanisms not envisaged by Darwin.

OK. Let's change 'Darwinian processes' with 'naturalistic processes'. In other words, the claim is that the species arose on their own, i.e., via biochemical interactions without the need for intelligent intervention. Are you saying that this is not a claim of the evolutionist community?

As for the "solely" - no, we cannot ever say that anything had a "sole" cause. So if anyone says that, they are not being scientific. Perhaps you could provide a citation for that claim.

But this is precisely what evolutionists are claiming. There are claiming that the species arose without the need for intelligent intervention. This is the same as saying that they arose solely as a result of non-intelligent or natural chemical processes. Daniel Dennett (an impostor of philosophy, IMO) is making just such a claim in his latest piece in the Atlantic in which he asserts, "Charles Darwin and Alan Turing, in their different ways, both homed in on the same idea: the existence of competence without comprehension." In other words, there is no need for intelligent design and natural chemical processes can do it all.

Louis: OK. Let's change 'Darwinian processes' with 'naturalistic processes'. In other words, the claim is that the species arose on their own, i.e., via biochemical interactions without the need for intelligent intervention. Are you saying that this is not a claim of the evolutionist community?

Yes, I am. The claim is not that life arose without the need for intelligent intervention, but that it arose by processes X Y and Z, and possibly by others we have yet to discover.

Science does not have the tools to rule out intelligent intervention by an omnipotent agent (though it can potentially rule out intelligent intervention by non-omnipotent agents).

You are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

Now, atheists (some anyway) may well claim that the evidence suggests that there is no God. But that, as Cornelius points out, is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. Or it is if the God in question is unspecified and can take on any characteristics.

And please note: there is a huge difference between saying: we have a mechanism that allows for the emergence of intelligence beings without intelligent intervention and we have shown that intelligent beings arose without intelligent intervention.

This is an extremely important difference, and one that Cornelius (and you too, apparently) consistently miss.

Liddle, are you speaking for the evolutionist community or just for yourself? Or are you being the dishonest politician?

The Darwinist claim (On the Origin of Species) that the species originated from natural selection acting on random mutations is still being defended by the evolutionist community, is it not? Are you saying that PZ Myers, Dawkins and all the other loudmouths of the evolutionist community are lying about the primary claim of the theory of evolution? If you are, I would have to conclude that you, too, are lying.

Liddle, are you speaking for the evolutionist community or just for yourself? Or are you being the dishonest politician?

The Darwinist claim (On the Origin of Species) that the species originated from natural selection acting on random mutations is still being defended by the evolutionist community, is it not? Are you saying that PZ Myers, Dawkins and all the other loudmouths of the evolutionist community are lying about the primary claim of the theory of evolution? If you are, I would have to conclude that you, too, are lying.

IQ test #2 for you Louis since you failed the first one so badly:

We know that rainfall can occur naturally. We also know that intelligent agents (humans) can seed clouds and cause rainfall.

I've recently come to the conclusion that those who defend the theory of evolution are a new kind of beast, almost inhuman in their cunning. The vigor with which they keep their edge by employing the most deceptive tactics to confuse the message of their critics while successfully keeping attention on their failings at bay.

Those of us rebels should realize by now that words will not defeat them. We need a new weapon, one that will blow everybody's socks off and render the prevaricators irrelevant, silenced and forgotten. This mountain cannot be scaled by might and power. We need a different weapon.

Louis: Liddle, are you speaking for the evolutionist community or just for yourself? Or are you being the dishonest politician?

For myself, primarily, Louis, but from my understanding of the science, and of the claims made by scientists. I don't know what you mean, exactly, by "the evolutionist community", so that might be the problem. I am talking about the scientific community, if about a "community" at all. And I am certainly neither dishonest, nor a politician.

The Darwinist claim (On the Origin of Species) that the species originated from natural selection acting on random mutations is still being defended by the evolutionist community, is it not?

Well, you don't have it quite right. "Natural selection" only "acts on" phenotypical features, which Darwin knew were partly heritable and which we now know (as Darwin did not) arise from sequence variants in DNA. But "acts on" is only a manner of speaking: what Darwin's theory boils down to is a near-syllogism:

If organisms reproduce with heritable variation in reproductive success, the most reproductively successful variants will tend to become the most prevalent.

This is self-evidently (and mathematically demonstrably) true. Moreover, it has been directly observed to operate in populations of biological organisms, in both the lab and field.

Darwin also proposed that by this mechanism, the variety of species that we see could be descended from much simpler, and less varied ancestral populations, which adapted to different environmental conditions, and bifurcated down different lineages, to produce the nested hierarchy of morphological features that Linnaeus observed.

Again, the fossil record supports this.

Are you saying that PZ Myers, Dawkins and all the other loudmouths of the evolutionist community are lying about the primary claim of the theory of evolution?

No.

If you are, I would have to conclude that you, too, are lying.

Well, you extrapolated beyond the range of your data.

Please read carefully what I wrote above, and I repeat below:

EL: there is a huge difference between saying: we have a mechanism that allows for the emergence of intelligence beings without intelligent intervention and we have shown that intelligent beings arose without intelligent intervention.

"But neither do their detractors. Common criticisms are that evolution is “only a theory” and so could be wrong. Even more typical is the complaint that evolution is really nothing more than atheism in disguise."

These criticisms are common to whom? The average guy on the street who pays little attention to the evolution vs creation debate or the well informed like those in Answers in Genesis?

I believe with the advent of the internet along with new research, there is a lot more being said on the creationist side, rather than just saying "it's nothing more than a theory that could be wrong."

What's "weak" about it, CH? You are surely not denying that genetic disorders run in families? Indeed we can track certain genetic disorders (Huntington's, for instance) to a specific mutation in someone who lived in a particular time and place (in the case of Huntington's, to a 17th century Afrikaner settler). We can do exactly the same thing for, for example, the broken GULO gene, allowing us to infer a common ancestor for humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques.

Nor is his argument from shared errors any better because convergence in biology is rampant.

Phenotypic convergence in biology is fairly common, not surprisingly. So aquatic animals from very different species (e.g. birds, mammals, fish) have a fair bit in common, phenotypically.

At a genetic level, convergence is much rarer, and, when it does appear to happen, the probabilities are actually calculated.

Please provide your own calculation for any example where the result is, in your view,

In his book Inside the Human Genome evolution professor and National Academy of Science member John Avise continues with the usual evolutionary religious claims that the evil and inefficiency of biological designs—at the molecular level in this case—necessitate evolution, for such designs would never have been designed or created by a loving higher intelligence. As usual, it’s all about religion.

There is evil at the molecular level? Who knew? Does it go further down? Could someone observing events at the quantum level become entangled with Satan?

As for the religious claims of the theory of evolution, there are none. It makes no claims about the existence or otherwise of any particular deity. It neither endorses nor denies any doctrine or theology. It is, on such matters, truly agnostic.

Individual scientists, of course, have their own beliefs, whether religious or atheistic, as is their right. How they square those beliefs with the theory is their business but it has nothing to do with the theory's soundness.

As for the claim that the somewhat less-than-perfect world in which we find ourselves is an argument against the existence of God and, hence, for evolution, I agree that it is a weak case at best and should not be used.

However, where Intelligent Design or Special Creation by God are offered as alternative explanations to the theory of evolution then it is perfectly legitimate to criticize their shortcomings.

[...]

Evolutionary thought has always been a referendum on creationism. That’s why they insist on labeling ID theorists as “creationists.”

That's because the majority of them are at bottom creationists.

[...]

And so there are three problems with evolutionary thought. First, it claims that its finding that evolution is a fact derives from empirical science. Second, it criticizes the use of religious assumptions. Third, its everything-came-from-nothing hypothesis, while religiously compelling, is scientifically absurd.

The first of these problems is a lie. The second is a hypocrisy. And the third is an abuse of science.

And all three of those are strawmen.

First, evolution is based on empirical research as much as any other established theory. Darwin's own painstaking observations, Mendel's work on inherited traits and the discovery and elucidation of the genome are all good, solid science.

Second, as I wrote before, the theory is not founded on any particular religious assumptions but, where religious explanations are offered as alternatives, it is quite right that they should be subjected to searching scrutiny. That is not hypocrisy, that is due diligence.

Third, theory of evolution itself offers no explanation of origins. It just takes things as they are and offers an explanation for what we see. That is not an abuse of science, that is science.

Please define "life" and "non-life" as you are using the terms, along with the objective criteria you use to determine each. Thanks

Life is "that" which has arisen by Darwinian Evolution. It is "that" which is the object of exobiology. Exobiologists are in a search of random mutation and natural selection happening outside of earth. A division of exobiology known as SETI concerns a search for intelligent life, intelligent enough to have respect and reverence for the Father of "what" created them, the "what" is Darwinian Evolution, the Father is Charles Darwin. Intelligent life would not be so ignorant to not know. But when the search finds ignorant life the Search for Extraterrestrial Ignorance records for history that the ignorant life is such because they didn't know "what" was happening to them; the "what" being Darwinian Evolution. That is, before they were informed of "what" is happening to them by SETI.

Hey man what happened to the hee hee hee? Not enough humor around your house these days? Just seeing rants here, rants there, rants everywhere from now till kingdom come? Oh -- sorry about that last word pairing, must seem like another rant.

Really??? So Intelligence does not presently generate functional information in your worldview? Oh yeah that's right, in your worldview there really isn't a such thing as true intelligence, just molecules in motion that give the 'appearance' of intelligence.

The only thing that is a load of junk in all this is the pseudo-theory (Darwinism) that demands that the majority of DNA is junk prior to investigation.

Of course there is "intelligence" in my view (see my additional comments below btw), but in my view that intelligence is a property of an organism, not some disembodied force, and acts physically through the actions of that organism.

So certainly, intelligent organisms can generate "functional information". So can non-intelligent (by which I mean unintentional) processes such as the Darwinian mechanism.

And "Darwinism" does NOT demand that "the majority of DNA is junk prior ot investigation.

"but in my view that intelligence is a property of an organism, not some disembodied force"

And you would be completely wrong in your assumption once again:

the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”(Max Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. The Esoteric Tradition. California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).

"It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

"It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" -Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'

What drives materialists crazy is that consciousness cannot be seen, tasted, smelled, touched, heard, or studied in a laboratory. But how could it be otherwise? Consciousness is the very thing that is DOING the seeing, the tasting, the smelling, etc… We define material objects by their effect upon our senses – how they feel in our hands, how they appear to our eyes. But we know consciousness simply by BEING it! - APM - UD Blogger

"And "Darwinism" does NOT demand that "the majority of DNA is junk prior ot investigation.

Either you made that up, or you got it from someone else who did."

Perhaps you care to correct these folks:

Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such - March 2011Excerpt: Some people revise history by claiming that no mainstream biologists ever regarded non-protein-coding DNA as “junk.”This claim is easily disproved: Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel published an article in Nature in 1980 (284: 604-607) arguing that such DNA “is little better than junk,” and “it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively” for functions in it. Since then, Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller, Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins, University of Chicago biologist Jerry A. Coyne, and University of California–Irvine biologist John C. Avise have all argued that most of our DNA is junk, and that this provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins argued similarly in his widely read 2006 book The Language of God.It is true that some biologists (such as Thomas Cavalier-Smith and Gabriel Dover) have long been skeptical of “junk DNA” claims, but probably a majority of biologists since 1980 have gone along with the myth. The revisionists are misinformed (or misinforming).http://www.uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/jonathan-wells-on-his-book-the-myth-of-junk-dna-yes-it-is-a-darwinist-myth-and-he-nails-it-as-such/#more-18154

Okie Dokie and perhaps you would care to actually prove that purely material processes can generate functional information instead of just declare it to be so? Or is that beneath your dignity? Perhaps a single functional protein or a molecular machine?

,,,Perhaps you can now inform Bill Gates that since you've finally located the magical Darwinian mechanism that can produce functional information of far greater complexity than man has ever programmed in his computers that Mr. Gates can now fire all his programmers.,,, Or on the other hand you could become honest and admit that you have absolutely no clue how such highly sophisticated information came to be in life. I will not hold my breath for either option happening in the near future!

In computer science we recognize the algorithmic principle described by Darwin - the linear accumulation of small changes through random variation - as hill climbing, more specifically random mutation hill climbing. However, we also recognize that hill climbing is the simplest possible form of optimization and is known to work well only on a limited class of problems.Watson R.A. - 2006 - Compositional Evolution - MIT Press - Pg. 272

Signature In The Cell - Review

Excerpt: There is absolutely nothing surprising about the results of these (evolutionary) algorithms. The computer is programmed from the outset to converge on the solution. The programmer designed to do that. What would be surprising is if the program didn't converge on the solution. That would reflect badly on the skill of the programmer. Everything interesting in the output of the program came as a result of the programmer's skill-the information input. There are no mysterious outputs.Software Engineer in Seattle - as quoted to Stephen Meyerhttp://www.scribd.com/full/29346507?access_key=key-1ysrgwzxhb18zn6dtju0

I understand the ideaf CSI to mean that there are very few possibilites that actually work. Proteins have to function, and be stable in a context. It seems to me that Elizabeths simulation doesn't reflect this. Every combination canbe said to work. The program just finds the one gives the highest number.

"You seem to be adding another hurdle here, not specified by Dembski, by demanding that the target space be unreachable by incremental improvements."

Hmmm, and yet in reality, not in hoodwinked simulations, target spaces for functional proteins are found to be unreachable by incremental steps. Exactly why are Darwinists fighting tooth and nail to defend a computer simulation that is not even faithfully mimicking reality in the first place? Perhaps a course in ethics should be required for neo-Darwinists in college so as to teach them a little honesty!!?

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds: Doug Axe: Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

Doug Axe Knows His Work Better Than Steve Matheson Excerpt: Regardless of how the trials are performed, the answer ends up being at least half of the total number of password possibilities, which is the staggering figure of 10^77 (written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). Armed with this calculation, you should be very confident in your skepticism, because a 1 in 10^77 chance of success is, for all practical purposes, no chance of success. My experimentally based estimate of the rarity of functional proteins produced that same figure, making these likewise apparently beyond the reach of chance. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/06/doug_axe_knows_his_work_better035561.html

Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their Script - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012Excerpt: Several different studies indicate that, at a minimum, about 10^70 (a one followed by 70 zeros) evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design before evolutionary mechanisms could take over and establish the protein in a population. For instance, one study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. This requirement for 10^70 evolutionary experiments is far greater than what evolution could accomplish. Even evolutionists have had to admit that evolution could only have a maximum of 10^43 such experiments. It is important to understand how tiny this number is compared to 10^70. 10^43 is not more than half of 10^70. It is not even close to half. 10^43 is an astronomically tiny sliver of 10^70. Furthermore, the estimate of 10^43 is, itself, entirely unrealistic. For instance, it assume the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumes the pre existence of bacteria and, yes, proteins.http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/03/here-are-those-two-protein-evolution.html

Somewhere in the deep dark recesses of batspit77's drug-addled brain I think he views himself as Keeper of the Creationist Flame and Defender of the Faith.

Whenever someone, anyone makes a valid point about evolutionary theory batspit77 has to run! quick! to his huge collection of archived Creationist crappola, do a word-search, then dump large amounts of C&Ped Creationist drivel on top of any conversation.

"Whenever someone, anyone makes a valid point about evolutionary theory"

So Darwinists are allowed to make claims that have no empirical support and when this 'unscientific' process is pointed out you are upset??? I thought you were all about the science Thorton? Does not science demand empirical confirmation or is science to you just Darwinists pronouncing on how the world should work, as the Ancient Greeks did, without any investigation into how the world actually works?

"The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave." - Henry F. Schaefer III

You've been talking to yourself there for a while now, Joe. They've banned you from Telic Thoughts and Uncommon Descent, so your own pathetic blog is the only place where you can rant, all alone. So you come here looking for a conversation.

Coin tosses (strictly speaking, sequences of coin tosses) in real life don't. In this simulation, they do. It wasn't the point of that simulation to mimic the properties of real-life coin tosses. The point was entirely different. Do you understand what it was, Joe? :)

That's a nice confirmation of what I said: Joe reads definitions but does not understand them. Here is a definition of a genetic algorithm. Joe says it isn't really a genetic algorithm. Can anyone see a contradiction here? :)

Of course they (strings) are genomes. They encode genetic information of candidate solutions. So they are genomes by definition.

In any event, genetic algorithms were defined by people who invented them. You can argue to what extent they mimic biological organisms, but that is beside the point for it isn't their function to simulate biology. Genetic algorithms are genetic algorithms, period.

Cornelius, people believed in common descent before Darwin. Pick any group of species, like dolphins: there are over twenty different species of dolphin each with unique adaptations. Then look at different species of toothed whales, the differences are much more pronounced within this more inclusive group. Then look at all whales, they all have hair are placental and have horizontal tail fins. Now look at all placental mammals, etc. These patterns inspired early naturalists to believe that there must be a common ancestor to these organisms and the dolphin common ancestor lived more recently than the whale commonn ancestor and so on. What made Darwin so important was that he came up with a mechanism for adaptation which was believed to be behind the pattern of species evolution. What is so cool is that when you look at the DNA of all these species, you see that yes whale species all have similar DNA and then the next most similar to them are mammal species, then reptiles then amphibians. Common descent predicts a tree like structure behind the patterns of similarity.

Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011 Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-and-probabilities-a-response-to-jason-rosenhouse/

Theory Creep: The Quiet Shift in Evolutionary Thought - Douglas Axe June 25, 2012Excerpt: But if we fast-forward two more decades, it becomes clear that the consistent picture that everyone expected -- all genes confirming the same pattern of species relationships -- is not to be. What we have instead is something of a mess, as James Degnan and Noah Rosenberg made clear in a paper published in 20093:"Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates."And despite consistent attempts to portray this as something less than a crisis for evolutionary theory, the news found its way into the popular press. That same year, The Telegraph jumped on the story with an article titled, "Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading,' claim scientists"4.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/theory_creep_th_1061301.html